Article 2 (Definitions)

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On December 22, 1989, the Plaintiff acquired the same 4,516 square meters prior to ○○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○, 2,347 square meters prior to the merger and division, and 8,333 square meters prior to ○○○, ○-1,03 square meters. On September 13, 1999, the Plaintiff divided each of the said lands into 15,196 square meters prior to ○○, ○, ○○, ○○, 4,958 square meters prior to the merger and division into ○○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○,347 square meters, and ○○○,333 square meters. On October 29, 199, the Plaintiff divided the said lands into 00,000 Ri, ○-10,238 square meters prior to ○○,00,650.

B. On July 31, 2005, the Plaintiff voluntarily paid KRW 52,160,990 of the capital gains tax reduced or exempted upon filing an application for tax reduction or exemption pursuant to Article 69 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Restriction of Taxes (amended by Act No. 7839, Dec. 31, 2005; hereinafter the same) on the premise that he/she himself/herself has awareness of the land in this case for at least eight years, upon filing a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income accrued from the transfer of the land in this case.

C. However, on July 1, 2006, the Defendant issued a corrective notice to the Defendant on July 1, 2006 that imposed capital gains tax of KRW 93,325,840 for the year 2005, on the ground that the instant land cannot be deemed as farmland of which the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax because it cannot be deemed as farmland

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 17 (including each number), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff acquired the land before annexation and subdivision on December 22, 1989, the Plaintiff himself cultivated the landscaped trees of this case on May 30, 2005 until the transfer of the land of this case. The Plaintiff acquired the land of this case with the land of this case and transferred it to November 11, 1999, and was exempted from capital gains tax after recognizing the fact of self cultivation for not less than eight years. Thus, the land of this case should be deemed as falling under “self-sufficient farmland for not less than eight years.”

(2) The defendant's assertion

It is difficult to see the present state of the land of this case as farmland at the time of the transfer of the land of this case, and even if landscape trees were to exist on the land of this case, it cannot be viewed as self-defensing since Kim Tae, a landscape gardening business operator, had cultivated by proxy, and thus, it does not constitute "self-def

(b) Related statutes;

Article 69 (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Article 66 (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Article 2 (Definitions)

Article 2 (Scope of Farmland)

C. Determination

(1) Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulate that income accruing from the transfer of land directly cultivated by a resident residing in a Si/Gun/Gu where farmland is located or a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto for not less than eight years shall be exempted from the transfer income tax, and Article 2 subparag. 5 of the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 8179 of Jan. 3, 2007) refers to the act that a farmer engages in the cultivation of crops or perennial plants in his/her own farmland at all times or the cultivation or cultivation of perennial plants with his/her own labor.

However, the fact that the transferred land under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act constitutes "self-sufficient farmland for not less than eight years" should be proved by the transferor who asserts it (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu996, Oct. 21, 1994). The interpretation of tax laws and regulations should be interpreted as a requirement for taxation or a requirement for non-taxation or tax reduction or exemption under the principle of no taxation without law without law unless there are special circumstances, and it is not allowed to expand or analogically interpret it without reasonable grounds, and in particular, it is not permissible to interpret it strictly to regard it as a clearly preferential provision among the requirements for reduction or exemption as a requirement for the principle of fair taxation (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu20090, Mar. 27, 1998).

(2) In light of the above legal principles, evidence that corresponds to the fact that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for not less than eight years lies in Gap evidence Nos. 8, Gap evidence Nos. 9 through No. 14, Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 8, and Gap evidence Nos. 15-6 and 15-8, and some of Gap evidence Nos. 15-2 and defendant No. 1-2.

However, if Gap evidence Nos. 18, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 7 are stated as evidence Nos. 11 (including each number), and some testimony of Kim Tae-tae, the court of first instance, as follows: ① since the plaintiff was engaged in the business of newly building and selling multi-household houses and multi-household houses, etc. from 2000 to 200, the plaintiff did not directly engage in the business of planting and managing landscape trees on the land of this case located at ○○○○○○-gun, Gyeonggi-do; ② it is against the rule of experience to view that the plaintiff was engaged in the business of planting and managing landscape trees on the land of this case; ② it is hard to view that the plaintiff was engaged in the business of planting and selling landscape trees on the land of this case after receiving a certificate of facts No. 9-1, Gap evidence No. 11-1, and No. 13-1, the plaintiff's business of planting and selling landscape trees on the land of this case.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax on the Plaintiff is lawful on the ground that the instant land does not fall under “self-sufficient farmland for not less than eight years”.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2007Gudan10931, May 21, 2008]

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

가. 원고는 1989. 12. 22. 합병 및 분할 전의 경기 ◯◯군 ◯◯면 ◯◯리 ◯◯ 전 2,347㎡, 같은 리 96 전 4,516㎡, 같은 리 96-1 전 8,333㎡를 취득한 후 1999. 9. 13. 같은 리 95 전 15,196㎡(이하 '종전 토지'라 한다)로 합병하였다 가 다시 같은 해 10. 29. 같은 리 95 전 4,958㎡(이하 '사건외 토지'라 한다) 와 같은 리 95-1 전 10,238㎡(이하' 이 사건 토지'라 한다)로 분할한 다음 2005. 5. 30. 이 사건 토지를 소외 정◯◯에게 대금 684,961,600원에 양도하였 다.

B. On July 31, 2005, the Plaintiff voluntarily paid KRW 52,160,990 of the transfer income tax reduced or exempted upon filing an application for tax reduction or exemption pursuant to Article 69 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Restriction of Taxes (amended by Act No. 7839, Dec. 31, 2005) on the premise that he/she had made a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income for the year 2005 following the transfer of the instant land by the Defendant.

C. After that, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax on the ground that the instant land cannot be deemed as farmland with a large scale of not less than eight years, and thus, ordered the Defendant to impose capital gains tax amounting to KRW 93,325,840 on July 1, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 7, 17 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

Since the acquisition of the instant land on December 22, 1989, the Plaintiff cultivated landscape trees from May 30, 2005 to May 30, 2005, and the disposition of this case, which imposed capital gains tax on the instant land, is unlawful, since the Defendant had already acknowledged the fact that the Plaintiff was self-sufficient for at least eight years on Nov. 11, 1999, as to the land other than the instant case, and was transferred on Nov. 19, 2009, by recognizing the fact that the Plaintiff was self-sufficient for at least eight years.

(2) The defendant's assertion

이 사건 토지의 양도 당시 이 사건 토지의 현황 상 농지라고 보기도 어렵고, 설사 이 사건 토지에 조◯◯가 있었다고 하더라도 이는 김◯◯로 하여금 대리 경작케 한 것이어서 자경이라고 할 수도 없으므로, 이 사건 토지는 어느 모로 보나 '8년 이상 자경한 농지'에 해당하지 않는다.

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(1) In full view of the above relevant laws and regulations, reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-arable farmland should be referred to as a "resident in a Si/Gun/Gu where farmland exists or a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto for at least eight years", and for the same period, the transferor shall be referred to as a "direct cultivation", and the capital gains tax on the transfer shall be reduced or exempted, and on the other hand, whether it constitutes a "self-developed farmland" for at least eight years shall be proved by the transferor.

(2) 그런데, 갑 제6호증, 갑 제15호증의 1 내지 5, 갑 제16호증의 1, 2의 기재에의하면, 원고는 1999. 11. 11. 이 사건 토지와 함께 종전 토지에서 분할된 사건외 토지를 공장용도로 ◯◯◯◯금속 주식회사에 양도하였다가 2000. 11.경 피고로부터 양도소득세 27,195,070원을 부과 받게 되자 2001. 2. 3. 피고에게 사건외 토지가 8년 이상 자경한 농지에 해당한다는 이유로 이의신청을 하였고, 이에 피고는 2001. 4. 19. 당시 원고 측이 제출한 경작확인서 등을 근거로 원고의 이의신청을 받아들여 당초 부과한 양도소득세를 면제하는 결정을 하였던 사실은 인정된다.

그러나 위 인정사실 및 갑 제4호증, 을 제12호증의 2의 기재만으로는 사건외 토지의 양도일로부터 5년 이상 경과하여 양도된 인접한 이 사건 토지가 양도 당시 8년 이상 자경한 농지에 해당한다고 단정하기 어렵고, 그 외 이 사건 토지의 양도 당시까지 원고가 8년 이상 이 사건 토지를 조경수 농장으로 실제 경작하였다는 원고의 주장에 부합하는 듯한 갑 제8호증, 갑 제9 내지 14호증의 각 1, 갑 제15호증의 6 내지 8의 각 기재와 증인 김◯◯의 일부 증언(뒤에서 채택하는 부분 제외)은 위 각 서증이 이 사건 처분에 대한 불복절차 또는 이 사건 소제기 이후에 작성된 점 및 갑 제18호증, 을 제2 내지 7호증의 기재와 증인 김◯◯의 일부 증언에 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 원고는 1995. 경부터 주택신축판매업 등을 하면서 1997년경부터 2005. 9.경까지는 ◯◯문화원장으로 재직하고 있어 실제 이 사건 토지를 경작하기 어려웠을 것으로 보이는 점, 이 사건 토지의 양도 직후 현황에 관한 양수자 측의 진술에 의하면 이 사건 토지 내에 잡초가 무성하였고, 슬레이트 집 주변에 일부 텃밭의 흔적이 있으나 방치된 상태였다는 것이고, 담당공무원이 2006. 10. 12.경 확인한 이 사건 토지의 현황보고에 의하더라도 수목 2~30그루가 식재되어 있으나 관상용이나 목재로 쓰기에는 적절하지 않고, 당시 공터, 잡초지역, 슬레이트 집, 텃밭으로 되어 있어 오랫동안 방치된 토지로서 양도 당시까지 직접 경작에 이용되었다고 보기 어렵다고 하고 있는 점, 설사 이 사건 토지가 양도 당시까지 경작되었다고 하더라도 원고 명의로 된 조◯◯ 등 거래내역에 관한 객관적인 자료가 없고, 증인 김◯◯는 이 사건 토지에 실제 자신이 나무를 심었다고 진술하고 있는데, 위 김◯◯는 2005.경까지 ◯◯농원이라는 상호로 임업을 하고 있어 위 김◯◯를 통하여 대리경작 되었을 여지가 있는 점 등에 비추어 믿기 어렵고, 달리 이 사건 토지가 '8년 이상 자경한 농지'에 해당한다고 볼 증거가 없다.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition that imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff is lawful, instead of applying the reduction or exemption provision on the ground that the instant land does not fall under “self-sufficient farmland for not less than eight years”.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

◯ 구 조세특례제한법(2005. 12. 31. 법률 제7839호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제69조자경농지에 대한 양도소득세의 감면

(1) With respect to the income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree among the land which is subject to the taxation of agricultural income tax (including those subject to non-taxation, reduction and exemption, and sub-collection of small amount), which is cultivated directly by the resident prescribed by Presidential Decree residing in the location of such land for not less than eight years, the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the transfer income tax shall be reduced

◯ 구 조세특례제한법 시행령(2006. 02. 09 대통령령 19329호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제 66조자경농지에 대한 양도소득세의 감면

(1) The term “resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of any farmland” in the main sentence of Article 69 (1) of the Act means a person who has cultivated while residing in the area falling under any of the following subparagraphs for not less than eight years (including the relevant area at the time of commencing the cultivation, but no corresponding area exists due to a reorganization of administrative districts):

1. An area in a Si/Gun/Gu (referring to an autonomous Gu; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) where farmland is located;

2. An area within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to an area referred to in subparagraph 1.

(4) The term "land prescribed by the Presidential Decree" in the main sentence of Article 69 (1) of the Act means the farmland that has been cultivated by himself for not less than 8 years from the time of acquisition to the time of transfer, excluding those falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

◯ 구 조세특례제한법 시행규칙(2005. 12. 31. 재정경제부령 제478호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제27조농지의 범위등

(1) Farmland under Article 66 (3) of the Decree shall be the full answer and land actually used for cultivation regardless of the land category on the public cadastral book, and shall include the farming shed, compost, pumping station, pumping station, branch office, concentration, waterway, etc. directly necessary for farmland management.

◯ 구 농지법(2007. 01. 03. 법률 제8179호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조정의

The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

1. The term “farmland” means the land falling under any of the following items:

(a) The land actually used for the cultivation of crops or perennial plants regardless of the legal category of the said land, paddy, field, orchard, or any other category: Provided, That the land prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as the grassland created under the Grassland Act, shall be excluded;

(b) Site for the improvement facilities (referring to the facilities prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry as necessary for the preservation or use of farmland, such as the maintenance, quantity, drainage facilities, waterway, farming roads, banks, and other facilities prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) and site for the facilities prescribed by the Presidential Decree among the facilities necessary for agricultural

◯ 농지법 시행령(2006. 01. 20. 대통령령 제19281호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조농지의 범위

(1) The land for which the plants falling under any of the following subparagraphs are cultivated under subparagraph 1 (a) of Article 2 of the Act shall be the land:

1. Woods, seedlings, ginseng, medicinal herbss, grasss, and seedlings for afforestation;

2. A plant used for food or medicine, for which the period of growth is not less than 2 years, such as fruit trees, mulberry trees, mulberry trees, fruit trees, and other plants;

3. Landscaping or ornamental trees and their seedlings (one short term in a case where they are for sale).